Nedum

Hi, I want to share my 4090 settings with you. If you have any question, feel free to ask me. I will try to make a picture with my Handy, so you can see what I see sitting in my Cockpit. The Tools and settings I am using see below. 1. Pimax Play 1.33.02.01 (see pictures below) 2. Quad-Views-Foveated-1.1.3 3. QuadViews Companion App (settings see pictures below) 4. OpenXR API Layers (for fixing issues if happen) 5. VRNecksafer beta5a (see pictures below) 6. DCS Systems and VR Settings (see pictures below) nullnull

Ok, mehre Dinge, die mich hier doch ein wenig erstaunt zurücklassen. 1. Wenn man, so wie du schreibst, bekennender Pazifist ist, wie kommt man beim Betrachten all der Bilder um DCS und des lesen des Namens auf den Trichter einen (Digital Combat Simulator) digitalen Kampfsimulator spielen zu wollen? 2. Wer zwingt dich, Kampfeinsätze zu fliegen? Man kann Stunden in DCS verbringen, ohne auch nur einen Schuss abgeben zu müssen. 3. Warum willst du uns das erzählen? Was ist der Grund öffentlich zuzugeben, dass man einen Fehler gemacht hat, und zwar gleich in mehrfacher Hinsicht. Denn, wie sich schon schrieb, man muss in DCS nicht kämpfen! Bei all der berechtigten Kritik an DCS und die Art und Weise wie Module verkauft und anschließend weiterentwickelt werden, kann ich absolut kein Verständnis dafür aufbringen, wenn man sich ein Produkt kauft, dass auf den ersten Blick im Kern fast allem widerspricht, was man eigentlich möchte. Ich gehe auch nicht in ein Steakhouse, obwohl ich Veganer bin, nur weil ich das Aussehen und die Haptik scharfer Steakmesser mag. Und ich bestelle mir dann auch kein Fleisch, das ich nicht essen mag, stehe anschließend auf und erkläre allen Anwesenden, dass ich Veganer bin und dass ich in diesem Steakhouse total falsch bin und Fleisch hasse, aber ich werde das tolle Essbesteck und dessen geniale Haptik vermissen. Was meinst du, werden fast alle in diesem Restaurant denken? "Kann der nicht lesen?" wird wohl noch das Netteste sein. Ich kann dir nur raten, dass du dich beim nächsten Mal vorher besser informierst. Trotzdem, oder gerade deshalb, viel Glück und Erfolg bei anderen Spielen. Nur, damit man mal sieht, wie seltsam das Posting eines bekennenden Pazifisten für mich und vermutlich auch andere anmutet, wenn man die offizielle Seite zu diesem Spiel liest. Stichwörter aus dem offiziellen Text: digitales Schlachtfeld Militärflugzeuge Kampfflugzeuge Waffensysteme Golfkrieg usw.

I am confused. GPS and INS are fighting against each other? If I use an INS drift correction, no matter which, the GPS "says": doesn't matter because I know better, but I am drifting like hell too and can't or will not correct myself? What? For what exactly is GPS good for in the F16? Even my car can correct the GPS data much better than what we get in DCS. And my car is not using military GPS information. And why we have two systems in a fighter jet fighting each other? Doesn't make any sense to me. I can drive 500+ Miles with my car, and I find exactly the house I have preplanned as my "target destination", but the F16 can't do that with all the top secret extra data? Really? That's like you have to disable your Handy, because if you don't the navigation system of your car can't find the preplanned destination anymore. That's out of my mind! I can't believe, that's that the way how the F16 system will work. No way! Is this here a degrading because ED will not give a special country a look how the F16 can be used and will work? I can't believe, in any way, that one would have given the F16 such an idiotic navigation system. Not yet and, for sure, not in the future. If the US-Army is looking for a real good and by 100% better navigation system for their jets. Please let them contact me. I can sell them a few from a well known seller in my country. Even the GPS driven Bombs can correct themselves, but the "big" plane can't? That's so laughable.

@NineLine Edit: I am aware of the meaning of stable. If I am talking about stable, I mean as bug free as possible with the current systems (Stable VERsion of DCS World), and the systems are well usable. But at the same time, ED is only implementing stable changes to the stable version, without rising the bug counter. Stable doesn't mean a module has to be out of the EA phase! If ED is adding bugs to a module, because they changed something and want to test it, and they are thinking, because the F16 isn't out of EA, and they can "test" the new stuff and fill the F16 module with bugs within the stable version of DCS World, destroying working systems, then we have a big problem. Much bigger, as I ever thought! Thank you for your support and your answer. I have to say, personally, I can't see that the F16 seems to be "the" Product for ED right now. If so, why are so many issues finding their way to the F16 module of DCS World? And why does it need several months (more than 6) to fix those issues for such an important module? There are so many bugs in this module you don't even need to find them. They are jumping you right into your face as soon you try to use the F16 like the manual shows (the small part who is correct). And as you have said, one system is related to another on. So why is ED putting bugs into the stable version, jumping into my face during a 30 minutes test? That's out of my mind. It looks to me like there is no good testing anymore for this essential module. I only have to start a basic Flight from a Quick Mission and all the Bugs saying "Hello" to me. There is no searching. It's only the use of a standard flight check necessary. Take a mix of weapons and sensors, and there they are. Bugs over bugs, since 2024! If ED thinks, they are not game breaking, I fear ED is not aware how bad the F16 feels after such a long time in early excess. All those issues were not there at the end of 2023! ED put issues into the stable version, all of them I can find in a 2-hour testing. Those bugs should have never found its way to the stable version. Never ever! The stable version should behave stable, right? But for me, the F16 is light-years away from the stable version, she was in at the end of 2023. Again, we are not talking about systems never worked good or "stable" before, we are talking about an F16 who worked pretty well with all available systems at the end of 2023. Some small issues, but you could use all the weapon systems and sensors without big problems. Now the basic systems, working before, are full of issues and the issues growing up. With every Patch we get more issues, not less, more! TWS, RWS, FCR, Navi, GPS, INS, Weapons, Tracking, Datalink, all those and many more systems worked pretty well. No big issues, but then there was the beginning of 2024, and the horror starts. This important module became a mess of "workarounds" for more than 6 months. Again, workarounds for things who worked well before the beginning of 2024. So, I have to ask again why does ED put changes into a stable version, who are not stable one can see in a maximum of a 2-hour testing? If I want to use the F16 at a minimum I could at the end of 2023, that is impossible. But why? Why did ED that? Why is ED making a good working module to a mess of issues, if this is the stable version for DCS World? If ED wants to test something, use the Beta. And PLEASE, test the things and if you find those obvious issues, don't put them to the stable version. If a module and the systems were "more" stable months before, then ED has a big problem with the quality of service team. I don't know what's the problem really is, but I have eyeballs and I can see what's not working anymore and there is nothing that seems to fix it. And one is for sure, if a module becomes more and more worse, there must be something wrong, especially in a stable version! @NineLine And here is the problem. ED can't even say when and if they can fix the main issue. And that ED really thinks there is no big problem to fill the F16 module with so many bugs, isn't a good sign in my eyes. It's really hard to find a way to believe in ED after this year, especially if the F16 is such an important module for ED, and we have to live such a long time with this many new issues. To be highlighting it, with this patch we've got 2 new TWS Bugs I could find in less than 5 Minutes! How can it be possible, those 2 find its way to the stable version of DCS World? That's exactly the reason we are running in such an endless row of issues following each other. So, I have to ask what exactly was the "benefit" of these 2 new bugs? What other issues of what important systems were fixed, so it was necessary to put these 2 new bugs into the stable version of DCS World? I think that's an important question, because there must be reason to fill the module with bugs, one can find without a master in Game Testing within 5 minutes. ED tells us, we have to wait such a long time for new Patches for the stable version of DCS World, because to prevent us from getting unnecessary bugs. How ED want to make that possible? I can't see that that ever happened this year. Not for the so important F16 module, that's for sure! If those bugs were necessary for the stable version of DCS World, tell us why? Again. Please, stop filling the F16 with issues without any benefit for the customer! If ED wants to test the module, test in with the Beta Version of this game, NOT in the stable version!

Yep, all I know is, that the current pod is a mix of the old and the sniper pod to "test" it. Isn't our DCS World version the stable on? So, why do we have to test this in the stable version? I thought, the stable version is for stable things!? At the beginning of this year, the F16 was so much fun. Most systems were working well, but now, I play some minutes and I start to get frustrated, because of all the issues coming to system who worked well in the past, without any reason. If they have never worked before, I could understand that, but that, no, that's BS. Right now, I need workarounds for workaround with every new patch. Not happy with that, and it seems it doesn't care ED much.

Hi, when can we expect the F16 to work as well as it did at the beginning of this year? The FCR and the cooperating modules are in a terrible state. Especially the functions concerning the TWS. There are so many issues, and, as if that's not enough, with every new patch we get more of them, mostly related to each other. So guess what, 2 new TWS bugs were added with this patch. Many of the problems are known for several months and have not been fixed even after 3 major updates. Look at the F16 FCR, especially the TWS section. It's a mess right now. The sad thing is, it has worked pretty well in the past! 1000 times better than now. Instead, fixing all those stone old bugs, you add the new ground radar shadows, but you can't fix the sticking to the cross bug for the ground radar. That all wouldn't be a problem, if the F16 systems never worked better in the past, but most, if not all, did! In the past, the F16 Radar and all the modules were working much better than now! Are you not aware in what bad state the F16 Module is right now? All that was starting with the first big patch this year, and since then it gets worse and worse. One fix, two new issues. Two fixes, four new issues. The Bug-Section is full of "stone old" Bugs, reported but not fixed. I suggest instead of constantly implementing new "features" for the F16, or new modules, you should start to fix all the game breaking bugs at first. Am I right? It's no problem, if the progress is "not fast", but it's a huge problem, if the progress seems to be that we will get more and more bugs for systems who worked very well before. Some known F16 bugs: 1. F16 Switching modes, Dogfight/ missile resets the radar setting 2. TMS up command starts a radar slew from left azimuth locking the first target that comes into its sight (ACM mode) 3. radar in "NO RAD" with JHMCS still locks targets ( ACM mode) 4. TWS: Cancelling a Cursor/Bugged Target doesn't return Azimuth Scan Limits to a normal TWS scan 5. AG Radar Image sticking to Crosshairs (it's marked as fixed with this patch, but it isn't) 6. Unable to use Spotlight in TWS 7. Air Boresight Issues 8. F-16 Radar takes too long to create track targets with FCR in TWS 9. IFF MASTER Selector behaviour 10. Difficulty upgrading Track Targets to System Targets ......... And there are many, many more. If it takes me 5 Minutes of testing to find 2 new bugs (TWS section) coming with this patch, jumping right into my face, I can say for sure, nobody ever tested it. I found 2 new bugs in less than 5 minutes. So now, after this patch, we not only can't have a stable MFD setting with RWS or TWS, we now can't switch back from TWS to RWS with the long TMS right press anymore. And, as if this wasn't enough "fun", we can't spotlight in TWS anymore. A small hint, both things worked pretty well till this patch. At the end, some small fixes and 2 new bugs. Not good. The F16 is no fun right now. I need for most of the systems workarounds, more than ever before. The "funny" part is, there were no new systems implemented. Those systems are old, but getting filled with new bugs every new patch. So I have to ask: "What's going on?" Why you (ED) add so many bugs to working systems without any reason? The 2 new bugs are made because of what? The F16 systems are old. They worked well. And now, instead of fixing the old bugs, you add more new issues. Stop it, please. Please fix the bugs and stop to implement new ones! Thank you for reading.

Hi, it's a known bug and already reported. As soon as you change the MFD settings, the FCR will switch to RWS not matter if you are in NAVI or AA Mode. Nearly every MFD change will do that.

Please, can you direct me to the exact posting who describe who we have to set up all the stuff (USA flight must be enabled for the blue side to get GPS data, etc.). The posting, you'd linked, is not explaining what was talked about in this thread. I am still looking for it, and I am unable to find it. We have so many of these threads because of the missing documentation, in which we should have all the necessary things described. Pointing to Threads, full of things, not going into the necessary details, isn't the thing we needed, but all we have. That's not good. That's producing frustration. How long do we have to wait for a Handbook, with all the necessary stuff, so we can >>start << to test the F16 module and if all systems are working like they should? And NO, the linked threads, postings, documents, whatever you show are not good enough to use all the >>current<< F16 systems like we have to. It's more like a "Where is Waldo?" thing, but the opposite of fun.

That info you should have given at the start of your Thread, and even more. In game settings are also an important part for a diagnostic. But bro, 120 Hz and you are asking why you get stutters near the ground? You must set the max HZ so that you do not fall below this number. Only then will you no longer have micro-judder. Try 90 Hz or 72 Hz, but 120 Hz, no way with good visuals and without any stutter.

5000 feet or lower? Hm? You use active pause, and no target is overlapping. And on top, you see clearly the real locked target (closed cross) was the wrong one. You never got the preplanned target locked with a closed cross. That's exactly we are talking about. In that time you did all the tweaking, you would have closed in 3 more miles. Try this with 4 MAVs preplanned. You understand the problem? Why you are still fighting for a thing, that's obviously broken? As soon as you try to lock the target (short TMS up) the MAV will lock any target but for sure not the one you want to lock if there is any kind of target more yummy for the MAV. Mostly the one that is more near into the direction to the MAVs sensor. The distances in between the Targets doesn't really matter, as long there is one more interesting target closer to the MAVs sensor. All you showed is the issue we are talking about. And on top of that all, at a certain distance, the ground stabilization of the MAV isn't working anymore. I don't know, is it the angle of the MAVs sensor or the TGP shared Info. I can manually still correct the MAV, but the ground stabilization is gone at round about 4 miles. Not the sensors nor the ATG weapons working like they should. Currently, the F16 is totally broken if you try to use the weapons and sensors like you have to do in one of the campaigns. Try rippling any type of bomb. Completely off. It doesn't work in any kind of way. No matter what type of ATG weapon, one is using. CCIP, CCRP with rippling = broken. FCR is totally broken, even without using Datalink. With Datalink on, is completely off. Every type of preplanned bombing is off. HARM/HTS is off. MAVs are broken. Dog Fight Mode breaks the preselected radar mode, as soon you switch to another system or mode. With Datalink on, you get blinded and fooled from your "friends". You are unable to see what targets are system targets anymore, and you are unable to make them all to system targets with a single button press. And your Friends are switching from "Hello Friend, here I am", to "No, not now. I will play hide and seek with you. Now I am unknown, now I am your Friend." Playing games on a war field. Some kind of special USAF-Humor? Even with Datalink all off, I am unable to make two tracked targets in the extended view with one click to system targets. My Radar clearly sees two different Targets, but I have manually to fiddle 10 seconds and more to make the second one to a system target, because the target cursor tries to snap !!!!!!always!!!!! to the target that is already a system target. What a "funny" minigame for the Pilot. If that is RL behavior, who ever said the system-devs of the F16 have no humor? So many "funny" mini-games for the pilot to play with. It's so funny playing games during a fight. Haha, haha, ha.... no! Hey, give me a number for the rippling distance. Doesn't matter... no matter what, they will fly to the Moon..... so much fun! Yeah. *funny dance* Preplanned bombing. Why planning it, bro? Doesn't work at all. Again, party time *whoop, whoop* So much fun........ No, not really! What kind of weapon or sensor system of the F16 is working like it should 100 %? The Gun, I guess? All other weapon or sensor systems have issues. Some small, some big. But all have issues. Fixes? If we were "lucky" to get a "fix", we've gotten at minimum two more bugs on top of that. So the issue count for the F16 is raising and raising with every new patch. And to make it "funny" again, most of these bugs inflicting other systems. Any ETA for any real fix? Not a single word! But, hey, we have a new Helicopter. Be happy. Yeahhhh...... no!

Please try that again at level flight and with overlapping targets (behind and not in a row in front of you). Could it be, that you pick the ideal solution to show that it works? War will never give you "the" ideal position. The "trick" is, that this should work even in a horizontal flight and at the min release height. All your Vids are from a high position (20.000 feet) and a deep dive angle. What, if you have to stay low? With such an attack run I can easily do the same as you, but that's not the problem. Fly horizontal at 5000 feet, and try to do the same in the Sinai Weapon Practice Mission.

Since months, if I try to ripple Bombs, the distance is way off. When do we get a fix? Nearly all weapons or systems or both are bugged. Is there any ETA for some kind of fixes? Edit: After the first Ripple, I can only ripple single Bombs. Edit 2: But not every time. All done with the Syria Quick Action Ground Attack Practice Mission E.trkE4.trkE2.trkE3.trk

You write exactly that what I had told. It doesn't make sense to warn the pilot to switch to a CAT position, if the CAT position is wrong, or the CAT position is a "decision" of the pilot, no matter what the warning will tell him. If it is like it is, it's another stupid thing with the F16, but when it's like in RL. Ok. The "fun fact" is, if there is another stores Config Warning, the pilot will not see that warning anymore, if he stays in CAT/III with 2 bags and all bombs released. He is forced to switch to the more dangerous CAT/I to make sure he can see other warnings. Can one explain why there has to be such a stupid behavior? There is no reason for that. If there is any logical reason, please explain. I can't wait to hear it. Until then, it sounds so unbelievable stupid. They make fun with the pilots with false false warnings, without any reason. That's a bummer. And again, why you guys try to tell me the CAT position doesn't limit Gs if I already said so? Is that a kid game, or what's going on?

Never read so much arrogant behavior packed in so few word. Firstly, to see a dot in a big distance is more realistically as nothing, If you had seen something in RL. Secondly, if you play the realistic card, make sure you don't counterattack yourself with this "label" thingy. The whole discussion is about the trick, to not know where to look at, and still have a chance to find the target in conjunction of size, daytime, and weather. In DCS, the higher the resolution, the worst it becomes to spot targets. How you try to explain it, is the opposite of how it is in DCS. The lower the resolution, the better the spotting. The problem DCS have is to decide if the ones with a good resolution get the advantage of a pair of good eyeballs, and when the ones with the poor eyeballs (small resolution) are allowed to spot the enemy too. No magic, only physics. Most of us know that DCS is a game. We all have to make compromises and not just one side, because this is probably the smaller of the two sides. At first, I thought: "Hm? the guy seem to understand what's going on." The fade out thing of the big dots for the lower resolution is the way to go, but, as you've already said, is still a big dot. But why then the thing to take up tank-sim? Oh my. Yeah. The point is, the jet has passed you in such a near distance you can still hear the sound. Speed of sound is nearly 340 m/s (at 20° Celsius). So you should have seen the jet incoming, but for sure you should see where the jet is after he was near enough, so you can still hear the jet. Why isn't it possible in DCS? The whole discussion around realism is not made for DCS. DCS cannot and will never be realistic as long ED has to play with all the different hardware, especially different resolution and PPD. It will not help to say others to play other games or to do the "right" things in the right time, so other people have the more realistic feeling, but the other ones have nearly no "realistic" feeling anymore. The spotting right now is the worst old one for people with good hardware, only to give people with not so good hardware a more realistic feeling. So right now, with my high resolution VR-Head Set, I can't spot jets anymore until I can see a kind of jet model (2.5 miles). Till then, they are completely invisible, if they are flying low. And up in the sky I have to know exactly where to look at to figure out there could be a dot or not until they are 5 miles near. Before the latest big patch, it was still hard to spot tiny jets, but now it feels like I am blind again. So, NO, this isn't realistic and mostly all of what you guys have said, is wrong if we all want to play a game that's fun for all of us, and it has for sure nothing to do with RL. Not a tiny little bit.

The last image was there to show that it doesn't matter how many AA missiles I take. It's all about the bags. And yes, I know that CAT/III is like a damper for the Stick input, so the input will take longer to get the same amount of Pitch or Roll. It's not a G-Limiter. But, and that's the important part, as you have said, the pilot can always reach the same amount of G's but not in the same time period as with CAT/I. G is acceleration of mass. The higher the G's the more the force have to fight with the mass. CAT/III helps the pilot to not reach too fast the critical amount of Gs. That's how CAT/III is working. It's all about G-Forces, acceleration, pylons, shear forces, fasteners and how all can withstand the G-Forces which affects that all. That's physic. Mass is the deciding factor here. There would be no logic to stay in CAT/III with 2 HARMs, but go to CAT/I with 2 fuel bags instead. The Pilot has always to watch to stay in the G-Tolerance, because the CAT positions are no G-Limiters. The only logic would be, the pilot can switch to CAT/I if the bags are empty, but that's not the case right now. And what would a trk-file change? Every one who is really interested into that behavior can pick the Caucasus free flight mission and the Afghanistan Air 2 Air mission and take a look. Sometimes I have the feeling one will kid me. If ED is not interested to fix Bugs, not my problem anymore. Do what you (ED) want. I'm out here.

Doesn't even matter. If I'm in Cat/III with whatever and how many AA weapons. The F16 stays with CAT/III, if I'm starting with 6*Missiles and 2 fuel bags. So, even that would be right, then during a fight, If I fire 2 of 6 AA weapons, the Stores Config should give me a hint to switch now to CAT/I. But it doesn't. And why I'm getting a Store's Config warning with 2 HARMs at the same pylons instead of 2 Bags, and 2*AIM-120 and 2*AIM-9-X, If I'm switching to CAT/I? As far I know, the weight on the wings and the pylons is what matters. For me, it makes no sense that the biggest mass holders, the 2 fuel bags, would not give any hint to stay in CAT/III until they are empty. Please take a look at the pictures below.

No matter if the mission starts inflight, or it's a cold start, or I do a rearm, every time I have 2 bags and AG weapons, as soon I have released the AG weapons, the system of the F16 gives me a Stores Config warning, so I'm forced to switch to CAT/I. If, I'm starting the mission inflight with only AA weapons and 2 bags, CAT/III is preselected and if I try to change this to CAT/I, I'm getting a Stores Config warning (like it should be). The same for a rearm. If I was in CAT/I and get 2 bags and not matter AA or AG weapons, I'm getting a Stores Config warning, and I have to switch to CAT/III. The issue is present in every Mission, with 2 Bags and AG weapons under the wings. And to counter test, you can take a mission with only AA weapons and 2 bags, like most Air to Air Missions. Why was that marked as solution? That's the explanation of how it should be, but currently it doesn't work like that, or was it fixed with the latest patch?

Doesn't really touch what I've written. They discussed the Over-G with the CAT settings and what the CAT setting really does. I ask about the warning logic. And a logic is currently not present, to say it nicely. The current "DCS CAT Logic" is as follows: 1. Forced to change to CAT/I with 2 bags and all AG weapons released to reset the Stores Config warning. 2. Switch from CAT/III to CAT/I without any AG weapons, but 2 bags under your wings will light up the Stores Config. So if 1. is right, 2. can't be wrong, but the "DCS-Logic" say, it is. I don't think it's clever to make fun with the Pilots. As far I've understood, If there are 2 bags under my wings I have to go with CAT/III or else I will get an "enlighten" hint to not do this. Currently, if I am in CAT/III with 2 bags and AG weapons and I release all AG weapons, the F16 say: "Hey idiot, you have to switch to CAT/I. Go on!" Me: "But there are 2 bags under my wings!" F16: "Shut up, you son of a B'x@#, I've said so, and I will show you I'm right (with a light) until you choose to switch. So go on and switch to CAT/I." Me: "But with only AA weapons and 2 Bags, you say I have to stay with CAT/III." F16: "So you tell me I am wrong? How dare you, you son of a B*+#x. I am ALWAYS right, so do as I say!"

Hello, I have to ask if this bug is a known one? If I have two Fuel Bags under my wings and I have released all of my A2G Weapons, the Master Caution Warning appears and the Stores Config Light is enabled until I switch to CAT/I. After doing that, I am now in CAT/I with 2 bags full of fuel under my wings. If I set up the F16 with 2 bags and only A2A Weapons, I have to use CAT/III. If I switch to CAT/l with this loadout, the Master Warning tells me I have to use CAT/III. Fix incoming? EDIT: please move to the Bug Section. Thx

You're right that you can and should wait, because the prices will fall as soon as the Zen 5 family comes onto the market. And from what I know, even without the 3D cache, the Zen 5 generation will be faster in games than any current Zen 4 3D cache model. However, I would be very surprised if the 15th Intel generation could compete with Zen 5, as from what I know, little to nothing has changed in the design. You'd be lucky if the degeneration problem of the 14th generation didn't also affect the 15th generation. Normally I don't care whether it's an Intel or AMD CPU, but at the moment I can only advise against Intel CPUs and wouldn't recommend waiting for the 15th generation.

Hi, please take a look at this site: https://technical.city/en/cpu/Core-i9-10900K-vs-Ryzen-7-7800X3D The 7800x3D will outperform the 10900K in any performance aspect. Yes, a change would definitely help you. And because you have to replace everything (board, CPU and RAM), then go for 64 GB. I often have situations where 32 GB RAM would no longer be enough. VR Settings: Max Settings 2D:

Honestly, are you kidding me? What's all this posturing as if I don't know what I'm talking about? I've asked you several times now to show me exactly what I need to do to get all the symbols displayed as shown in the DCS F16 documentation. Specifically the hollowed out yellow square, and all you can come up with is claiming it works exactly as described in the documentation in the game. Then I show you a video that shows exactly how it doesn't, and you claim the same nonsense again. If you're so sure that everything fits, then show me how I can get the yellow hollowed-out square to be displayed. If you can't do that, stop claiming things that are proven to be false! Edit to make it better visible (the colors a white and yellow in this picture): So gain. Explain how I can manage to see those symbols. That's from the original F16 C document. And that's exactly what would make sense. In this picture you can see that suspected targets are marked as system target, and now the Pilot is able to see all the systems targets with Datalink enabled. Right now, this is impossible to get, and on top of that you are unable to make all tracks in your TWS scan to system targets, to see it, and to make them to bugged ones. So, NO, the Datalink Symbology isn't working as shown in the F16 C documentation. And this bug is still here for more than 8 Month.

What I've said could be misleading that this is how it should work, but that's not the case. It's by 100 % a bug. The right behavior was, you could set the FCR pages (NAV and AA) to the TWS mode, and no matter to what page you switched after that (TGP, AG RADAR, BIT, etc.) the TWS mode was there after you returned to the FCR page. E.g. you have set the FCR Page to RWS using the NAV mode and set the AA FCR Page to TWS, both settings were fixed no matter how often and to which other page you would have switched. Right now, every page change will force to the RWS mode, but it shouldn't.

P L E A S E watch that video below (it's not mine). You really try to tell that's how the Datalink should work? Ok? Again, S h o w me how I manage to see a hollowed out yellow square (picture below, DCS F16 C documentation). To me, it doesn't make any sense to filter all Datalink data to get a proper symbology back, so I have a better overview of my tracks, as with the Datalink data itself. That's extra workload. Any designer who would build such stupid "helper" should be sent into prison. What you describe is a workaround and not how it should work, if I can thrust any documentation and logic. If the Datalink really works like in DCS right now, the designers of this system have built a kind of "smart" helper that reduces the pilot workload by adding extra workload because he has to switch the Symbology every few seconds, to get a "better" overview? Really, I don't have enough fantasy for that kind of "logic". That kind of helper sounds sick to me. I hardly doubt that the DCS Datalink Symbology and how it works, is that what a RL F16 would see. I can say what I am doing right now. I disable the Datalink completely to get a much better situational overview during an attack. TWS without Datalink and doing quick IFF scans alone gives me a much better and quicker overview as that what we get with the Datalink on. And on top, without the Datalink I can see what is a track, system or a bugged target. And I can make all my TWS tracks to system tracks with a single button move. With Datalink enabled, that isn't possible right now. Right now, Datalink enabled means no full TWS functionality and less situational overview during a fight. The DCS Datalink isn't really able to show me who is friend or foe. The DCS Datalink can show me if and what target my flight is engaging. Besides that, it's only fooling me with dump or false information. What a great helper, especially during an intense fight...... not!

Could it be there are different Videos from Spud from his MOZA Flight stick FFB testing? In the Video I was watching, he clearly said, MOZA send him a bundle to test how it would work t o g e t h e r e ! And as far I can say from watching the Video, all he said about that combi was right. The option to change the position of the base is too short in all ways. The FFB Base is even at the max low setting of the mounting device so high, that the base will block the legs and also too far away from the Pilot's body. And the movement range of the Grip to the front is blocked by the mounting device no matter what setting you use. So he was testing the bundle, like MOZA wanted, and he gave feedback. The tested bundle, to make it short, suxxs. Was Spud right? Yes he was. Without any doubt, that bundle is bad, even if you try to use it as a side mounting device. Please guys, watch the video again and stop this bad talking about a person who did that what Moza wanted. I am happy what he did. Because of that Moza has now the chance to build a much better mounting device and because of that every future customer has a chance of a much better experience as with the device which Spud has tested.